Dismissed

State of Orissa v. Nirmal Ch.Nayak.

Orissa HC6 Jul 2017WP(C)/8661/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions filed by the State of Orissa challenging an Orissa Administrative Tribunal order that directed authorities to consider promotion applications. The Tribunal had relied on its own earlier precedent where it decided that previously appointed staff should be treated as fairly recruited despite procedural lapses. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding the Tribunal had no e

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions were dismissed.

State of Orissa Vs Nirmal Ch.Nayak. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.

¶2

W.P.(C) Nos.8661, 8662 & 4687 of 2006

¶3

In the matter of application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶4

¶5

State of Orissa and others (In all cases) …… Petitioners

¶6

Versus-

¶7

Nirmal Chandra Nayak (In W.P.(C) No.8661 of 2006) Shakuntala Parida (In W.P.(C) No.8662 of 2006) Padmalochan Behera (In W.P.(C) No.4687 of 2006)

¶8

Opposite Parties

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr. D.R. Mohapatra, Standing Counsel (School & Mass Education Department) For Opp.Parties : M/s. Sashi Bhusan Jena, S. Behera, S.S. Mohapatra, A. Mishra, R.C. Ray & P. Chuli. M/s. J.K. Rath, D.N. Rath, S.N. Rath & C.K. Rajguru.

¶10

¶11

PRESENT:

¶12

THE HONOURABLE KUMARI JUSTICE SANJU PANDA &

¶13

THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶14

¶15

Date of hearing and judgment : 06.07.2017

¶16

¶17

S. N. Prasad, J. In these writ petitions the common order dated 30.06.2005

¶18

passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in

¶19

O.A. Nos.603, 604 and 887 of 1990 has been challenged by the State of Orissa whereby and whereunder the Tribunal has directed the authorities to

¶20

¶21

consider the applications of the applicants for promotion of the post of junior clerk by staying Departmental Promotion Committee so that process to be completed within period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶22

The fact of the case is that the applicants were originally appointed for Class-IV post in a different Secondary Training Schools, having passed matriculation and in response to an internal recruitment notice, applied for the post of junior clerk, they have been appointed as junior clerk by taking participation in the selection process, i.e., in the written test and interview and appointed in different duties. Accordingly, they resumed their duties.

¶23

The authorities, subsequently, has taken decision that the appointment of the applicants as junior clerk having not been made in accordance with the procedure and as such, they have decided to revert them and the vacant posts of Class-IV may be kept till adjustment of the employees reverted. The applicants had approached to the Tribunal against the decision of the authorities, by which, the decision for reverting them to the original post has been taken on the ground that there is no illegality in the process of recruitment, rather they have been appointed as junior clerk after following due procedure and after being declared successful in the written test as well as the interview, they have got their requisite qualifications to hold the said post. They have also relied upon an order

¶24

¶25

passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.488 of 1990 showing to the Tribunal with respect to the decision rendered by it to give relaxation to those junior clerks, who had already put more than 12 years of service after their promotion irrespective of their qualification and the Tribunal had ordered that the question of relaxation in the post to be considered taking into account on the basis in the post of junior clerk which they held uninterruptedly for a long time. The said decision of the Tribunal was based upon the decision of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No.544 of 1989 decided on 21.11.1995 and O.A. No.533 of 1987 decided on 5.2.1997, as such, the Tribunal after taking note of all aspects of the matter has directed the authorities to grant promotion as junior clerk by staying the Departmental Promotional Committee.

¶26

According to the opposite parties/applicants, there is no infirmity in the said order since the same is based upon the decision taken by the Tribunal in O.A. No.544 of 1989, O.A. No.533 of 1987, O.A. No.603 of 1990 and O.A. No.604 of 1990. It has been submitted that these orders passed by the Tribunal has not been assailed by the State Government before the higher forum and as such, the Tribunal while disposing of the original applications, has committed no error since it has been disposed of putting reliance upon the earlier decisions of it, which is binding upon the Tribunal.

¶27

¶28

The State-petitioners has challenged the order passed by the Tribunal on the ground that the order passed by it is absolutely illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law as because the concession allowed by the Tribunal in the order passed by it in earlier round of litigation is not for the petitioners. In view of the fact that the Government has taken out a specific stand for removal of all such employees, who have irregularly been appointed, but the Tribunal without taking note of the standing order of the Government, has directed to consider the case of the applicants for promotion, as such, the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law, being contrary to Government standing order.

¶29

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

¶30

The fact which is not in dispute in these cases are that the Tribunal has passed order while disposing of the original application putting reliance upon the order passed by it in O.A. No.544 of 1989, O.A. No.533 of 1987. It is not in dispute that the orders passed in these original applications have not been challenged before the higher forum and as such, it has attained its finality. In consequence thereof, the decision is binding upon the Tribunal. It is also not in dispute that the applicants are possessing required eligibility condition to hold the post and recruited to the post of junior clerk by following the same process as held in O.A. No.603 of 1990 and O.A. No.604 of 1990. In course of argument, the facts has not

¶31

¶32

been disputed rather it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the case in hand is identical to the case of the applicant in O.A. No.603 of 1990 and O.A. No.604 of 1990.

¶33

Considering this admitted position, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal while disposing of the original applications has not committed any error in passing orders by putting reliance upon the earlier order passed by it to extend the benefit to the applicants/opposite parties, hence we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Tribunal.

¶34

In view thereof, the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed and accordingly the same are dismissed.

¶35

…..… …………… ….…..………….…. S.N. Prasad, J. Sanju Panda, J.

¶36

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 6^th July, 2017/D. Aech

State of Orissa v. Nirmal Ch.Nayak.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Orissa v. Nirmal Ch.Nayak.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nrusingha Charan Jena Vs Oat,Cuttack Bench

State of Odisha Vs Manmathnath Das

Banamali Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Bhimasen Behera Vs State of Orissa

Ritanjali Puhan Vs State of Orissa

State of Odisha Vs Nirmal Ch.Nayak